A few random thoughts:
- Maybe we ought to cool it with the analogies. The OP rightly noted that contracted players aren't the same as an ordinary person who can be fired at will. But then people supporting the OP have gone on to say that the right analogy is any other person in a contract situation (forgetting various things that make professional sports quite unique: a special dispensation from Congress to form an oligopoly, maximum contracts and mandated far-below-value contracts for those who choose not to play the team-control game, no real true free agency for the first seven years (more than an average career length) and none at all at the beginning, extremely strong cultural value placed on historical legacy based on team wins, fandom and marketing opportunities, ability to be traded with no say [not just to another branch of the same company, but to a completely different company], etc.)
- The OP didn't do it, but I always wonder how closely lurking in the background for many people who hear about this is something like: "I can't support Donovan as a fan as much if he doesn't have the correct view about the sanctity of contracts." We obviously can't agree among ourselves about what the proper attitude toward contracts and player movement is. I hope we're not letting this color our view of a 23-year old who may have a different view than some of us do.
- It should come as no surprise that players support more freedom when it appears to be a realistic option. Whether it's good for the league in the long run is probably immaterial (and likely not something we should be expecting someone in a player's position to have clear, deep thoughts about). Almost any one of us put in that situation would prefer more freedom. It would be in our best interest, just as it's in Donovan's best interest.
-Won't it mean more if, while championing the freedom for player movement generally, Donovan chooses to stay with the Jazz past the first opportunity to leave and maybe even stays his whole career here?
